Fwd: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
We have received a response to our inquiry to the CWG concerning the group’s timing and progress. I would like to suggest that we reserve some time (at least 90 minutes) at our face-to-face meeting next week to discuss the impact of the response on our process timeline <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en....>. I will circulate a proposal for modifying our timeline in advance of the face-to-face meeting. If you have thoughts in the meantime, please share them on this thread. Alissa Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Subject: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment) Date: January 30, 2015 at 5:37:21 AM PST To: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>, "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir@mbash.net> Cc: <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Reply-To: <jrobinson@afilias.info>
Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages,
Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some more detail.
Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of 31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a three key points:
1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs. 2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work, not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves. 3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.
Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on the diagram. They include but are not limited to:
A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific content of any such advice B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the outcome of the work of the CWG
Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may not be achievable.
We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of and engaged in our progress to that end.
Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with the current timetable of the ICG
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG
Dear CWG,
The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to complete its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of 30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hello, I am forwarding this clause from the contract because it may have some relevance in light of the CWG¹s estimate for its timetable when we are discussing the timeline at our next meeting . Section I.39 52.217 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract states: ³The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 15 calendar days before the expiration of the contract; provided that the Governmnet gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 calendar days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.² Regards, -- Elise From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Date: Friday, January 30, 2015 at 4:52 PM To: ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
We have received a response to our inquiry to the CWG concerning the group¹s timing and progress.
I would like to suggest that we reserve some time (at least 90 minutes) at our face-to-face meeting next week to discuss the impact of the response on our process timeline <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en.... df>. I will circulate a proposal for modifying our timeline in advance of the face-to-face meeting. If you have thoughts in the meantime, please share them on this thread.
Alissa
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> Subject: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment) Date: January 30, 2015 at 5:37:21 AM PST To: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>, "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir@mbash.net> Cc: <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Reply-To: <jrobinson@afilias.info>
Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages,
Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some more detail.
Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of 31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a three key points:
1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs. 2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work, not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves. 3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.
Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on the diagram. They include but are not limited to:
A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific content of any such advice B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the outcome of the work of the CWG
Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may not be achievable.
We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of and engaged in our progress to that end.
Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with the current timetable of the ICG
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG
Dear CWG,
The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to complete its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of 30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG¹s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG¹s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group¹s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks Alissa, This is noted, and I will adjust the agenda for the f2f meeting accordingly. If there is someone on ICG that would like to be the lead for this discussion item (as Alissa will not be on site), please let me know. Patrik
On 31 jan 2015, at 01:52, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
We have received a response to our inquiry to the CWG concerning the group’s timing and progress.
I would like to suggest that we reserve some time (at least 90 minutes) at our face-to-face meeting next week to discuss the impact of the response on our process timeline <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en.... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en.pdf>>. I will circulate a proposal for modifying our timeline in advance of the face-to-face meeting. If you have thoughts in the meantime, please share them on this thread.
Alissa
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Subject: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment) Date: January 30, 2015 at 5:37:21 AM PST To: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se <mailto:paf@frobbit.se>>, "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir@mbash.net <mailto:mbashir@mbash.net>> Cc: <cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Reply-To: <jrobinson@afilias.info <mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>>
Dear Alissa, ICG Vice Chairs & Colleages,
Thank-you for this note. We are pleased to be able to now respond in some more detail.
Following our collective recognition that the CWG would not be able to respond with a proposal in time to meet the original planned submission of 31 January 2015, we have continued to work hard at making progress. This has involved many areas of concurrent work including re-evaluating the work required to complete a proposal and seeking to clearly understand the key dependencies. In this regard, we would like to draw your attention to a three key points:
1. The number and diversity of participants in the CWG's work necessarily mean that it is time-consuming and complex to take account of these inputs. 2. The number of dependencies which impact the timeline of the CWG's work, not all of which can be effectively or completely managed by ourselves. 3. The inter-relationship with the work of the CCWG on Accountability and the necessary inter-dependence of the work of the CWG and the CCWG.
Recognising the above, we have constructed a timeline which seeks to provide a Best Case for the production of a proposal from the CWG. This Best Case seeks to predict the path to production of a final proposal which can be signed off by the chartering organisations and moreover, is correlated with the work of the CCWG on Accountability. This Best Case is includes key areas of work (separated into specific work streams), the use of high intensity periods of work and the potential use of an in person / face-to-face meeting of the CWG. It also highlights where there are key risks to the timetable and the consequent target date. These risks are represented by triangles on the diagram. They include but are not limited to:
A. Lack of consensus within the CWG around a specific proposal B. Issues around the duration to acquire legal advice or the specific content of any such advice B. The willingness or ability of the chartering organisations to support the outcome of the work of the CWG
Rest assured, we have every intention of producing a proposal, which has the support of the CWG members and the chartering organisations, in a timely fashion and will make best efforts to do so. However, we feel strongly that we need to set expectations about the current timetable and the implicit target it contains in that it contains identified risks and therefore may not be achievable.
We trust that this is an effective update and are committed to continuing to work towards a well-supported proposal as well as to keeping you informed of and engaged in our progress to that end.
Thank-you for your active involvement and appreciation of our task.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
Attachment: An representation of the Best Case timetable of work for the CWG correlated with our current understanding of the work of the CWG and with the current timetable of the ICG
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>] Sent: 16 January 2015 23:16 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Request from ICG
Dear CWG,
The ICG has been following the developments in all of the operational communities, including the naming community. We have noted some discussions about the possibility that the CWG might require additional time to complete its response to the ICG RFP beyond its original planned submission date of 30 January 2015. In this regard, the ICG would appreciate receiving the CWG's estimated revised completion date, taking into account appropriate time for community consultation. Please communicate this to the ICG as soon as possible but not later than 31 January 2015. It would also be helpful for you to indicate what you expect the CWG’s major challenges to be to complete your work in a timely fashion and whether ICG coordination can be of assistance.
We appreciate the CWG’s continued diligence in working towards target completion dates and we expect to stay in close contact concerning the group’s progress until its work is complete.
Thanks, Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129.pdf>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
So the cat is finally out of the bag officially :-(. I suggest that we, the ICG, should take a positive attitude and that we genuinely thank the CWG for their response and their work so far. We need to work actively in order to emphasise the progress already achieved by *all* OCs. We also need to admit that our original time-line was extremely ambitious and possibly unrealistic given the complexities in the "names" OC. We have to do everything to counter the impression that the process has failed or is failing because we are going to miss an extremely ambitious target for delivery of our proposal. Daniel
Alissa, Others If I remeber, in your Note to CWG, it was indicated that CWG clearly advise ICG by latest 31 January 2015 , the new deadline that they require to provide reply to RFP . I do not see any such deadline. The Co-Chairs of CWG just described the difficulties that they are encountered not being in a position to meet 31 Jan -2015 - How much more time they need. Your note was clear. Before we discuss the matter in out f2f meeting in Singapore, we need to know how much time they need to reply. We can not establish another arbitrary deadline as they may not be able to meet the new deadline established by ICG in Singapore either. Pls clarify the matter. We should not push more than necessary. I do not think Radidly done badly done is acceptable. ICG need to accept the reality. That reality needs to be duly reflected in the outcome from our Singapore meeting Kavouss 2015-01-31 10:30 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
So the cat is finally out of the bag officially :-(.
I suggest that we, the ICG, should take a positive attitude and that we genuinely thank the CWG for their response and their work so far. We need to work actively in order to emphasise the progress already achieved by *all* OCs. We also need to admit that our original time-line was extremely ambitious and possibly unrealistic given the complexities in the "names" OC. We have to do everything to counter the impression that the process has failed or is failing because we are going to miss an extremely ambitious target for delivery of our proposal.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Kavouss, In the mail from Alissa there was a timeline provided by the CWG chairs. I here attach it again. Maybe that is an answer to your question. Patrik
On 31 jan 2015, at 16:11, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, Others If I remeber, in your Note to CWG, it was indicated that CWG clearly advise ICG by latest 31 January 2015 , the new deadline that they require to provide reply to RFP . I do not see any such deadline. The Co-Chairs of CWG just described the difficulties that they are encountered not being in a position to meet 31 Jan -2015 - How much more time they need. Your note was clear. Before we discuss the matter in out f2f meeting in Singapore, we need to know how much time they need to reply. We can not establish another arbitrary deadline as they may not be able to meet the new deadline established by ICG in Singapore either. Pls clarify the matter. We should not push more than necessary. I do not think Radidly done badly done is acceptable. ICG need to accept the reality. That reality needs to be duly reflected in the outcome from our Singapore meeting Kavouss
2015-01-31 10:30 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>>:
So the cat is finally out of the bag officially :-(.
I suggest that we, the ICG, should take a positive attitude and that we genuinely thank the CWG for their response and their work so far. We need to work actively in order to emphasise the progress already achieved by *all* OCs. We also need to admit that our original time-line was extremely ambitious and possibly unrealistic given the complexities in the "names" OC. We have to do everything to counter the impression that the process has failed or is failing because we are going to miss an extremely ambitious target for delivery of our proposal.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
kavouss, the answer is mid-june, it is in the attached pdf d ---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 31.01.2015, at 19:11, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa, Others If I remeber, in your Note to CWG, it was indicated that CWG clearly advise ICG by latest 31 January 2015 , the new deadline that they require to provide reply to RFP . I do not see any such deadline. The Co-Chairs of CWG just described the difficulties that they are encountered not being in a position to meet 31 Jan -2015 - How much more time they need. Your note was clear. Before we discuss the matter in out f2f meeting in Singapore, we need to know how much time they need to reply. We can not establish another arbitrary deadline as they may not be able to meet the new deadline established by ICG in Singapore either. Pls clarify the matter. We should not push more than necessary. I do not think Radidly done badly done is acceptable. ICG need to accept the reality. That reality needs to be duly reflected in the outcome from our Singapore meeting Kavouss
2015-01-31 10:30 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
So the cat is finally out of the bag officially :-(.
I suggest that we, the ICG, should take a positive attitude and that we genuinely thank the CWG for their response and their work so far. We need to work actively in order to emphasise the progress already achieved by *all* OCs. We also need to admit that our original time-line was extremely ambitious and possibly unrealistic given the complexities in the "names" OC. We have to do everything to counter the impression that the process has failed or is failing because we are going to miss an extremely ambitious target for delivery of our proposal.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I fully agree to Daniel's suggestion .. I also noticed the following on the CWG mailing list: " thanks for the CWG timeline. Is the ICG likely to adjust its own timeline due to the delay incurred by our process? I note that at the moment, the Names Community proposal is set to reach the ICG as the very end of its process "ICG develops Final Response"." Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:30 AM To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment) So the cat is finally out of the bag officially :-(. I suggest that we, the ICG, should take a positive attitude and that we genuinely thank the CWG for their response and their work so far. We need to work actively in order to emphasise the progress already achieved by *all* OCs. We also need to admit that our original time-line was extremely ambitious and possibly unrealistic given the complexities in the "names" OC. We have to do everything to counter the impression that the process has failed or is failing because we are going to miss an extremely ambitious target for delivery of our proposal. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Manal, Please see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-January/001592.html. I believe that is our answer until we meet and discuss. Alissa On Jan 31, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
I fully agree to Daniel's suggestion .. I also noticed the following on the CWG mailing list:
" thanks for the CWG timeline. Is the ICG likely to adjust its own timeline due to the delay incurred by our process? I note that at the moment, the Names Community proposal is set to reach the ICG as the very end of its process "ICG develops Final Response"."
Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:30 AM To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment)
So the cat is finally out of the bag officially :-(.
I suggest that we, the ICG, should take a positive attitude and that we genuinely thank the CWG for their response and their work so far. We need to work actively in order to emphasise the progress already achieved by *all* OCs. We also need to admit that our original time-line was extremely ambitious and possibly unrealistic given the complexities in the "names" OC. We have to do everything to counter the impression that the process has failed or is failing because we are going to miss an extremely ambitious target for delivery of our proposal.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Thanks Alissa .. Noted .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 4:43 PM To: Manal Ismail Cc: Daniel Karrenberg; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment) Manal, Please see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-January/001592.html. I believe that is our answer until we meet and discuss. Alissa On Jan 31, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote: I fully agree to Daniel's suggestion .. I also noticed the following on the CWG mailing list: " thanks for the CWG timeline. Is the ICG likely to adjust its own timeline due to the delay incurred by our process? I note that at the moment, the Names Community proposal is set to reach the ICG as the very end of its process "ICG develops Final Response"." Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:30 AM To: Alissa Cooper; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: CWG Timetable - Best Case Estimate (RESEND with updated attachment) So the cat is finally out of the bag officially :-(. I suggest that we, the ICG, should take a positive attitude and that we genuinely thank the CWG for their response and their work so far. We need to work actively in order to emphasise the progress already achieved by *all* OCs. We also need to admit that our original time-line was extremely ambitious and possibly unrealistic given the complexities in the "names" OC. We have to do everything to counter the impression that the process has failed or is failing because we are going to miss an extremely ambitious target for delivery of our proposal. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (6)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Elise Gerich -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Manal Ismail -
Patrik Fältström